RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

Sat May 17 06:58:46 UTC 2014

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you everyone for your responses.
>
> Someone on the channel said that there is no way I can come out
> looking good in this whole discussion. Another person suggested that
> while I had a point earlier, it has now been diluted by the ensuing
> discussion.

I disagree. Thanks so much for taking the time to email about this.

> I agree with both of those verdicts. If the whole conversation is
> going to be coloured by that, I fear it will devolve into the same
> points that were hashed on IRC.
>
> To pare down my email, the things I felt distasteful were:
> * ops killing organic, non-insulting, non-inflammatory discussions by
> silencing people

The #ubuntu channel is huge, and is for technical help. Anything else
is unwelcome, since it is so busy. That is why there are *lots* of
other channels.

> * ops basing ban decisions based on personal prejudice (e.g. towards
> words like blitzkrieg and dictator, drawing conclusions of World War
> II and Hitler)

Such language is not welcome in an *buntu space. In fact, it is not
welcome anywhere on the Internet, IMO.

> * ops banning people in the main channel for discussions happening in
> a completely separate channel (and to be banned by the same op who I
> had the issue with is an obvious conflict of interest)

To me, this is your weakest point. #ubuntu-ops is for the purpose of
ops helping on another out, interacting with the bots, and dealing
with people out of the main channels. I was really disappointed in how
much you escalated the discussion there.

> * general lack of responsibility towards IRC ops -- shown by an
> attitude of "puppies don't die" if there are mistakes in judgement
> * overall hostility in #ubuntu-ops, mainly with people's insistence to
> leave the channel -- why is it so important to push people out of a
> channel?

All non-ops are asked right in the /topic to leave when their
conversation is done. "General lack of responsibility"? Seriously?
This is the entire reason we have become ops -- because we feel
responsibility for keeping the channels pleasant and helpful.

> Happy to hear thoughts about this.
>
> Cheers,
> Rohan
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi ubuntu-irc,
>>
>> I hang on out #ubuntu as "rohan", generally a lurker -- once in a while I
>> ask questions and answer things I know.
>>
>> Today, I encountered something I found disturbing. There was a
>> misunderstanding between two users, and an op decided to silence one of
>> them. The discussion was civil (no swearing or flooding), but also
>> off-topic. I feel silencing a user in this case is overreaching and rude --
>> especially a user who might have been new to the IRC community (and maybe
>> new to Ubuntu itself).

This is exactly what should have been done. Once a person is quieted,
they can discuss in private with the op if that is appropriate. Of
course flooding and trolls are treated differently.

>> On complaining about this in the channel, I was directed to to talk in
>> #ubuntu-ops, which I joined and then stopped talking on #ubuntu. On the -ops
>> channel (which is logged), I had a few heated words exchanged with the op
>> who originally took the wrong action (in my opinion). Eventually, it boils
>> down to whether words like "blitzkrieg" and "dictator" are offensive or not.

They are extremely offensive. I can imagine no venue where these terms
would be NOT offensive.

>> Since the logs are public[1][2], I'll cut a long story short: the op chose
>> to ban me from #ubuntu for a week. This was without me talking in #ubuntu or
>> provoking drama in the main channel at all. The reason given was that I was
>> likely to misbehave in #ubuntu, without there having been any evidence of
>> having done so. As the logs will show, I tried to make my point in various
>> ways, sometimes being drawn out. In interest of list readers' time, I can
>> summarise the ensuing discussion as unfruitful and borderline hostile -- in
>> (large) part due to my own insistence of remaining in the channel. I was
>> unequivocally told to leave the channel at multiple times, with various
>> people suggesting I get a life, or my insistent complaining as pathetic.
>>
>> I apologise for an already long email (but as people in the channel will
>> tell you, it's much shorter than reading the whole scrollback!).. but here
>> are the things I wanted to request members' views and comments on:
>>
>> * Is it ok to stifle discussion by silencing one person when an argument
>> seems to be happening in the channel, under the pretext of avoiding drama?
>> ** This is also against the guidelines of when to ban/kick a person -- there
>> was no flooding, nor were there any swear words or unappealing language.

Quieting an argument in a technical help channel is not "pretext". It
is the appropriate way to keep the channel useful.

>> * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for
>> discussion happening in a completely separate channel?

#ubuntu-ops is NOT a "completely separate channel." It exists to
safeguard #ubuntu and the other core Ubuntu channels.

>> ** Especially when the discussion was exactly about the op overreaching:
>> this seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Also, should an op's
>> personal bias towards words like blitzkrieg and dictator be allowed to
>> affect a user's ability to enter a channel?

That is not personal bias. Those terms are alway offensive, everywhere.

>> * What can be done to make #ubuntu-ops a more friendly place? The discussion
>> was very obviously hostile, and I was penalised for speaking up against the
>> very two ops I had a problem with, and in general the channel's attitude was
>> "write an email and gtfo, you're just repeating the same things over and
>> over". I don't understand the insistence to leave the channel, nor the very
>> obvious ganging up of the "ops vs. users" -- at least I felt that way from
>> the get-go. After I left the channel, the logs show people suggesting each
>> other to skip reading the scrollback and offer sympathies for people who
>> actually wanted to read it. If that can be written off as humour, I would
>> like to ask why the same kind of humour leads to a ban in #ubuntu.
>> ** This is especially important, because #ubuntu-ops is the first forum in
>> the appeals flow, and the experience there was extremely elitist and
>> hostile.
>>
>> * Why is it so bad to suggest an op be penalised? Why does doing that
>> instantly evoke allegations of being childish and immature (as opposed to
>> people claiming they themselves are intelligent adults)? If an op can ban
>> someone for a week in a completely unrelated channel for discussion in
>> another channel, why is it sacrilege that there should be at least some kind
>> of disciplinary action?

It isn't bad; just impractical for all but the worst offenders -- such
as those who would use their power to penalize/punish users. Quieting
and kickbanning are not punishment; they are protection of the
channel.

>> * Continuing from the previous question, the general feeling I got is that
>> the accountability of ops in general is not up to the usual Ubuntu
>> standards. Whereas packages in the repo are vetted in several different
>> ways, there seems to be no similar vetting for the whole ops flow. People
>> claiming that "puppies don't die" if an op makes mistakes shows that the
>> general feeling of responsibility seems low. Another way of thinking about
>> this is if that puppies are not going to die anyway, why go out of your way
>> to ban someone for a joke here and there?

I find the quality of ops to be almost universally high.

>> * Turning the tables onto myself, was I annoying? In short, yes. Could I
>> have done things differently? Yes. Feedback on my behaviour is as much
>> appreciated as the discussion on the above bullet points.
>>
>> If you actually made it this far -- thank you! I am looking forward to
>> hearing other points of view, and as someone on IRC suggested, I will try my
>> best to ensure that this goes better than the discussion on IRC was :)
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rohan
>>
>> [1]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/15/%23ubuntu-ops.html
>> [2]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/16/%23ubuntu-ops.html
>>
>> --
>> Rohan Dhruva

Nice to talk to you again in a more calm, reasoned manner. Again,
thank you for taking the time to take the discussion to email.

All the best,

Valorie
-- 
http://about.me/valoriez